I've addressed them plenty of times. I've told you they are mostly the result of game situations. But you insist on using them as examples of the Patriots' ineptitude in game planning and play calling. We just disagree. I think Bill Belichick does the right thing and you think he does the wrong thing.

That's what it boils down too. I try to understand the logic behind what Belichick does because I believe he knows more about football than me (or you) and that he almost always does the right thing. You on the other hand whine about Bill Belichick doing the wrong thing because you apparently think you know better than he does what should be done.

Oh, that's right. The greatest coach in NFL history was forced into being 1 dimensional for 6 straight playoff losses due to game situation. You're en fuego.

[/QUOTE]

And you seem to think he just screwed up his game plans six years in a row . . .

Chump thinks it's a good idea to reduce our HOF QB's snaps by handing off to our non Hof RB's when the non-Hof Defense is ALREADY reducing our Hof Qb's snaps by keeping him on the bench for the majority of the game.

The idea that Belichick and his coaches can't figure out how to manage the offense has always struck me as absurd, particularly given how many points their offenses have scored year after year. But, let's get back to the main point of the thread which is simply why does Belichick treat one type of turnover less seriously than another.

Those of us who have followed Belichick for a while know that he is particularly hard on running backs who fumble. Many have actually criticized him for being too hard. A lot of people felt benching Ridley for the 2011 Super Bowl was a mistake. And many others have pointed out how a lot of other very good runningbacks fumble roughly at the same rate as Ridley. Starting RBs frequently end up with 3 to 5 fumbles a season. Ridley isn't outside that ballpark with 3 fumbles last year on 178 rushing attempts.

We know Belichick doesn't like any turnovers, but his reaction to fumbling in the running game has always been much, much stronger than his reaction to interceptions in the passing game. I don't think that is explained simply by Brady's HOF status. Maybe it's partly explained by differences in the degree of carelessness demonstrated by the QB and the RB. But really, I think the main reason for the difference in treatment is because of what I said earlier:

The primary strategic advantage of the running game is its low-risk nature. Once you fumble, however, you destroy that strategic advantage. Running, with its four-yard average gain and its high percentage of gains below 3 yards is generally a low-reward play. If it is also low-risk, then it has a very useful role. But if it becomes high-risk, it ceases to be useful. So Belichick is adamant about ensuring his RBs are extremely reliable with ball security. It's required for running to be strategically advantageous.

Passing, on the other hand, is a high-reward play. Completions average about 10 yards, and even with incompletions and sacks included, pass plays average over 6 yards. Passing, though, is higher risk because 45% of the plays go for no gain or less (i.e., are incompletions or sacks) and the risk of turnover is higher than in the running game. Still, those turnovers are more tolerable, because the risk is outweighed by the reward. So while Belichick doesn't like turnovers in the passing game any more than turnovers in the running game, he finds them more tolerable. They are just part of the price you have to pay for a higher reward play.

And that's the answer to my question about why Belichick is easier on Brady's interceptions than on Ridley's fumbles . . .

The idea that Belichick and his coaches can't figure out how to manage the offense has always struck me as absurd, particularly given how many points their offenses have scored year after year. But, let's get back to the main point of the thread which is simply why does Belichick treat one type of turnover less seriously than another.

Those of us who have followed Belichick for a while know that he is particularly hard on running backs who fumble. Many have actually criticized him for being too hard. A lot of people felt benching Ridley for the 2011 Super Bowl was a mistake. And many others have pointed out how a lot of other very good runningbacks fumble roughly at the same rate as Ridley. Starting RBs frequently end up with 3 to 5 fumbles a season. Ridley isn't outside that ballpark with 3 fumbles last year on 178 rushing attempts.

We know Belichick doesn't like any turnovers, but his reaction to fumbling in the running game has always been much, much stronger than his reaction to interceptions in the passing game. I don't think that is explained simply by Brady's HOF status. Maybe it's partly explained by differences in the degree of carelessness demonstrated by the QB and the RB. But really, I think the main reason for the difference in treatment is because of what I said earlier:

The primary strategic advantage of the running game is its low-risk nature. Once you fumble, however, you destroy that strategic advantage. Running, with its four-yard average gain and its high percentage of gains below 3 yards is generally a low-reward play. If it is also low-risk, then it has a very useful role. But if it becomes high-risk, it ceases to be useful. So Belichick is adamant about ensuring his RBs are extremely reliable with ball security. It's required for running to be strategically advantageous.

Passing, on the other hand, is a high-reward play. Completions average about 10 yards, and even with incompletions and sacks included, pass plays average over 6 yards. Passing, though, is higher risk because 45% of the plays go for no gain or less (i.e., are incompletions or sacks) and the risk of turnover is higher than in the running game. Still, those turnovers are more tolerable, because the risk is outweighed by the reward. So while Belichick doesn't like turnovers in the passing game any more than turnovers in the running game, he finds them more tolerable. They are just part of the price you have to pay for a higher reward play.

And that's the answer to my question about why Belichick is easier on Brady's interceptions than on Ridley's fumbles . . .

Maybe, but I think you are reading too deep into this. Simply put, the pats best chance of scoring points, which is the offenses job, is through the hands of Brady. Strategically speaking, in this offense and a majority of offenses in the nfl, the pass is the primary vehicle to move the ball. Yes, there is a symbiotic relationship between run and pass, but I just think it comes down to putting the ball in the hands of your best weapon and living with the outcome. If the pats had a QB equal in skill for the position to what they had at rb, I think we may see a different strategy employed.

One factor regarding Ridley that we don't have enough information on is how he performs in practice. BB counts that work as a valuable indicator and Ridley has perhaps shown bad tendencies there as well.

Perhaps that factor, coupled with his very poor playoff fumbling frequency along with the ATROCIOUS fumble he had when nobody was even touching him, all add up to the very short leash he gets and deserves.

Remember the Patrick Pass hamstring fumble? The guy was toast from then on.

Maybe, but I think you are reading too deep into this. Simply put, the pats best chance of scoring points, which is the offenses job, is through the hands of Brady. Strategically speaking, in this offense and a majority of offenses in the nfl, the pass is the primary vehicle to move the ball. Yes, there is a symbiotic relationship between run and pass, but I just think it comes down to putting the ball in the hands of your best weapon and living with the outcome. If the pats had a QB equal in skill for the position to what they had at rb, I think we may see a different strategy employed.

That's fair Lifer. I think the key is what you say in yellow above. Passing is the key to moving the ball for most teams. Running is used to keep the defense honest and also because of its greater reliability in short yardage situations. My main point is that fumbling is less tolerable than throwing interceptions, in part because it's probably more avoidable, but more so because it actually destroys the primary strategic advantage of running the ball.

With the Pats in particular, though, you are right that Brady is by far our best weapon, so putting the ball in his hands makes sense. That's more a Pats' specific point, not the more general point I was making. But it is definitely true.

One factor regarding Ridley that we don't have enough information on is how he performs in practice. BB counts that work as a valuable indicator and Ridley has perhaps shown bad tendencies there as well.

Perhaps that factor, coupled with his very poor playoff fumbling frequency along with the ATROCIOUS fumble he had when nobody was even touching him, all add up to the very short leash he gets and deserves.

Remember the Patrick Pass hamstring fumble? The guy was toast from then on.

Chump thinks it's a good idea to reduce our HOF QB's snaps by handing off to our non Hof RB's when the non-Hof Defense is ALREADY reducing our Hof Qb's snaps by keeping him on the bench for the majority of the game.

Brilliant.

When the HOF QB keeps going 3 and out because the other team's defense can play pass D without having to consider the run and only 30 seconds are run off of the clock each offensive series that's supposed to be a good thing?

Chump thinks it's a good idea to reduce our HOF QB's snaps by handing off to our non Hof RB's when the non-Hof Defense is ALREADY reducing our Hof Qb's snaps by keeping him on the bench for the majority of the game.

Brilliant.

When the HOF QB keeps going 3 and out because the other team's defense can play pass D without having to consider the run and only 30 seconds are run off of the clock each offensive series that's supposed to be a good thing?

Exactly ^

I just realized that was in response to pezzy. He's the only guy I have on ignore on this board. He brings nothing to the table.

Because Brady has one of the lowest interception rates in the NFL. Any backup QB who comes in will throw interceptions at a higher rate than Brady.

Ridley has an above average fumbling rate compared to other NFL running backs. Any backup RB will likely fumble at a lower rate than Ridley.

Brady's interceptions seldom are the result of carelessness; almost all of Ridley's fumbles ARE (usually, his maddening tendency to spin in heavy traffic).

BB hates turnovers, and will bring the hammer down when a turnover is caused by carelessness. That doesn't mean he has a zero tolerance policy though; he understands some will happen. There is, after all, another team on the field and they're trying to make plays too.

Ding, Ding! Please see the Miami Game some years back. Brady puts his team in front by 3 scores, gives way to the Great Matt Cassell. He proceeds to get picked off on his 1st series on a screen pass by Jason Taylor and Immediately is Pulled in favor of Brady who comes back and calms things down so we can get the win. So everyone pointing to Matty winning 11 games needs to put it into context.

B) Fumbling is much more avoidable than throwing INTs. Some fumbles are great defensive plays, but most are the result of poor ball security which is something the player can control entirely.

and BB has shown much more patience when its a great defensive play but not so much when you are being careless. he showed that last year when he gave Rids a vote of confidence after the Strip by Pittsburgh(I think) He explained how he views them differently but for Rids sake, he needs to stat off the radar for a while and get NO fumbles, regardless of fault.

and BB has shown much more patience when its a great defensive play but not so much when you are being careless. he showed that last year when he gave Rids a vote of confidence after the Strip by Pittsburgh(I think) He explained how he views them differently but for Rids sake, he needs to stat off the radar for a while and get NO fumbles, regardless of fault.

Triple, back when Maroney was fumbling, I remember BB saying that once a player shows a tendency to fumble defenses are going to key on that and attempt to create more. They're like sharks with blood in the water. So some of his reluctance to put a fumbler back in the game comes from the fact that defenses are going to be focusing on the fumbler once he's shown weakness.

Of course, defenses also play for interceptions when they see weaknesses in QBs or receivers that way. But again, I think turnovers in the running game are just intolerable because they destroy the major advantage of running over passing: limited risk.

and BB has shown much more patience when its a great defensive play but not so much when you are being careless. he showed that last year when he gave Rids a vote of confidence after the Strip by Pittsburgh(I think) He explained how he views them differently but for Rids sake, he needs to stat off the radar for a while and get NO fumbles, regardless of fault.

Triple, back when Maroney was fumbling, I remember BB saying that once a player shows a tendency to fumble defenses are going to key on that and attempt to create more. They're like sharks with blood in the water. So some of his reluctance to put a fumbler back in the game comes from the fact that defenses are going to be focusing on the fumbler once he's shown weakness.

Of course, defenses also play for interceptions when they see weaknesses in QBs or receivers that way. But again, I think turnovers in the running game are just intolerable because they destroy the major advantage of running over passing: limited risk.

No argument here. This is why BB is cautious to play him vs Ferocious D's....which is usually most of your playoff opponents. Do so at your own risk...See Ridley getting KTFO in the playoffs 2 years ago... Last year they went with Blount and it probably cost us production.

No argument here. This is why BB is cautious to play him vs Ferocious D's....which is usually most of your playoff opponents. Do so at your own risk...See Ridley getting KTFO in the playoffs 2 years ago... Last year they went with Blount and it probably cost us production.

This is also interesting. Belichick may actually be willing to sacrifice production in the running game to avoid fumbles. Assuming this is true (and I think it may be), it shows how limiting risk is paramount in the running game, and maybe even takes precedence over yardage (production).

The idea that Belichick and his coaches can't figure out how to manage the offense has always struck me as absurd, particularly given how many points their offenses have scored year after year. But, let's get back to the main point of the thread which is simply why does Belichick treat one type of turnover less seriously than another.

Those of us who have followed Belichick for a while know that he is particularly hard on running backs who fumble. Many have actually criticized him for being too hard. A lot of people felt benching Ridley for the 2011 Super Bowl was a mistake. And many others have pointed out how a lot of other very good runningbacks fumble roughly at the same rate as Ridley. Starting RBs frequently end up with 3 to 5 fumbles a season. Ridley isn't outside that ballpark with 3 fumbles last year on 178 rushing attempts.

We know Belichick doesn't like any turnovers, but his reaction to fumbling in the running game has always been much, much stronger than his reaction to interceptions in the passing game. I don't think that is explained simply by Brady's HOF status. Maybe it's partly explained by differences in the degree of carelessness demonstrated by the QB and the RB. But really, I think the main reason for the difference in treatment is because of what I said earlier:

The primary strategic advantage of the running game is its low-risk nature. Once you fumble, however, you destroy that strategic advantage. Running, with its four-yard average gain and its high percentage of gains below 3 yards is generally a low-reward play. If it is also low-risk, then it has a very useful role. But if it becomes high-risk, it ceases to be useful. So Belichick is adamant about ensuring his RBs are extremely reliable with ball security. It's required for running to be strategically advantageous.

Passing, on the other hand, is a high-reward play. Completions average about 10 yards, and even with incompletions and sacks included, pass plays average over 6 yards. Passing, though, is higher risk because 45% of the plays go for no gain or less (i.e., are incompletions or sacks) and the risk of turnover is higher than in the running game. Still, those turnovers are more tolerable, because the risk is outweighed by the reward. So while Belichick doesn't like turnovers in the passing game any more than turnovers in the running game, he finds them more tolerable. They are just part of the price you have to pay for a higher reward play.

And that's the answer to my question about why Belichick is easier on Brady's interceptions than on Ridley's fumbles . . .

I think the simple asnwer is, Well Passing more leads to more turnovers and Since BB is the One advocating for all of this passing, he HAS to cut Brady some slack seeing as some of his INTs come from the fact that most teams know Brady is gonna pass most the game. So he is just saying, I am asking Brady to throw 40 plus times to outscore teams because we dont defend well. In the process, Im gonna need about 12-18 runs just to keep the D honest and below average amount for a starter SO I expect YOU to take care of that ball. Brady throws, on average for about 300/gm and has responsible for wins more so than the D so he gets a pass doing it all. The Backs by committee keeps them fresh and the Run plays 2nd fiddle and does NOT produce 300 plus yards a game, HENCE the Lack of Patience for turnoves in the Run game.

Does that about sum it up, Pro, because I def. agree with it.

Not a dumb thread if it makes you think....BUT it is if it smashes your "RUN" agenda....lol

No argument here. This is why BB is cautious to play him vs Ferocious D's....which is usually most of your playoff opponents. Do so at your own risk...See Ridley getting KTFO in the playoffs 2 years ago... Last year they went with Blount and it probably cost us production.

This is also interesting. Belichick may actually be willing to sacrifice production in the running game to avoid fumbles. Assuming this is true (and I think it may be), it shows how limiting risk is paramount in the running game, and maybe even takes precedence over yardage (production).

Certainly, esp when you consider Parcells old adage of Attempts is more important than yards, then YES, its more important to have the sure handed guy over a riskier option but having Benny as your lead back didnt produce any SB wins, despite Rusty thinking it was that simple. Maroney didnt Fumble in SB 42 but he Also didnt produce...ditto for everyone since Dillon....

In the ever changing constellation of defenses and offenses in a few short seasons I doubt it's possible to change rosters to the extent necessary to account for every contingency...contracts get signed and basic offenses are being committed to early on...BB and the coaching staff must see something in Ridley to keep him around after his screwups....

Yes, offesnses have been pass happy for a while now, but you do have to have a decent running game to compliment that, to keep defenses off balance...having a slasher is better against spread defenses simply because you have more room to manuver before the back is even hit for the first time, assuming the RB makes it through the line fairly unsctahed...

Everey season is different....let's see if there's a new primary back onb this team this year before passing judgement.

BTW...Brady has won BB and the Pats 3 SB's , almost two more, and when he left both of those games late the Pat's were winning and the D's lost both games for the team...

Brady is a sure first ballot HOF'r, nmaybe the GOAT...

Ridley......unless things change for the better in ahurry he'll be known a s a decent, yet journeyman-like, RB.....there is a huge difference between the two...the difference between the two is pretty obvious, with all due respect...People with different abilities are often treated differently...it's just the way it is

What I can't believe is that prior to my response there were 71 (yes, SEVENTY ONE) responses to this idiotic thread. To the OP, how did you come up with such a lame-brained question? I guess the number 71 must also have another meaning when it comes to you.

What I can't believe is that prior to my response there were 71 (yes, SEVENTY ONE) responses to this idiotic thread. To the OP, how did you come up with such a lame-brained question? I guess the number 71 must also have another meaning when it comes to you.

I think he knew the answer but wanted to test the collective intelligence of the board in regards to pass/run... You Know...the ONLY thing worth discussing in the offseason and frankly, some folks still dont get it. So while the question may seem silly on the surface, there are some special folks who really cant answer it.